The high cost items that you REALLY need health insurance for are catastrophic health issues, like if you end up in a car wreck, or if you have a heart attack, not the run of the mill contagious diseases that you can go to the doctor and get a prescription or a shot to treat. This is not a public safety issue. Are you honestly afraid that you are going to catch a disease because someone out there is uninsured? Insurance shouldn't cover those low-cost types of items anyway, in my opinion. It used to not be that way. How expensive would your car insurance be if it paid for new tires, brakes and oil changes?

The roads would probably be a lot safer...

11-19-2012, 10:28 PM

drtom2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUTaxMan

The high cost items that you REALLY need health insurance for are catastrophic health issues, like if you end up in a car wreck, or if you have a heart attack, not the run of the mill contagious diseases that you can go to the doctor and get a prescription or a shot to treat. This is not a public safety issue. Are you honestly afraid that you are going to catch a disease because someone out there is uninsured? Insurance shouldn't cover those low-cost types of items anyway, in my opinion. It used to not be that way. How expensive would your car insurance be if it paid for new tires, brakes and oil changes?

Yes I would be afraid of Flu, TB, cellulitis. All of those things used to kill but are easily treated and prevented with antibiotics and vaccines.

Life expectancy is now 85. In 1850, it was 45. The biggest reason being antibiotics and vaccines. So yes the government/ insurance companies should pay for those things. Those cheap things bring costs down by not having people in an ICU.

What is more expensive, a Flu shot or an admission to an ICU for pneumonia induced by flu?

11-19-2012, 11:14 PM

drtom2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpeichel

It wasn't always like this. Previously when you couldn't pay, you went to a charity hospital which provided free services. It wasn't until the government passed the laws that enforced permanent cost-shifting that healthcare costs exploded. And now they passed Obamacare to try and fix the problem they created, but so far it hasn't slowed down the rising costs of healthcare at all.

Government expenditures on Medicare/Medicaid keep growing. They've tried to squeeze providers by limiting the reimbursement rates for providers, but then the providers just turn around and get bigger margins on everyone else to compensate and healthcare costs continue to escalate.

This is another fallacy. The change in healthcare started with HMOs in the 1980s. They started paying providers less for their services. This caused the increase.

Providers in the U.S. only get 9% of the total cost. In countries in the E. U., the providers get 10-12%. Providers in the U S make more money because they work more hours.

As for the recent explosion in cost that comes from drugs. As usual the U S is subsidizing other countries drug programs with our longer patent program. When countries like Norway state that most drugs will be generic by the time they reach the market,where do you think the price will go up? Of course, the U S. Maybe other countries should bare some of the cost.

As for government cost going up, maybe private insurance companies should start paying for the high end procedures instead of dumping their extremely sick patients on the government. Once again we are subsidizing insurance companies profits like we do for most big businesses in this country.

Of course, making the decision to not give you, our parents, or grandparents a pacemaker or dialysis is not what people want to hear. Maybe, as a country, we should start talking about such things.

11-19-2012, 11:30 PM

tpeichel

Quote:

Originally Posted by drtom2005

This is another fallacy. The change in healthcare started with HMOs in the 1980s. They started paying providers less for their services. This caused the increase.

Providers in the U.S. only get 9% of the total cost. In countries in the E. U., the providers get 10-12%. Providers in the U S make more money because they work more hours.

As for the recent explosion in cost that comes from drugs. As usual the U S is subsidizing other countries drug programs with our longer patent program. When countries like Norway state that most drugs will be generic by the time they reach the market,where do you think the price will go up? Of course, the U S. Maybe other countries should bare some of the cost.

As for government cost going up, maybe private insurance companies should start paying for the high end procedures instead of dumping their extremely sick patients on the government. Once again we are subsidizing insurance companies profits like we do for most big businesses in this country.

Of course, making the decision to not give you, our parents, or grandparents is not what people want to hear. Maybe, as a country, we should start talking about such things.

I agree with many of your points, but without cost-shifting, healthcare would be much less expensive. Once the government required hospitals to treat everyone, even those that could not pay, they had no other option but to raise prices for everyone else.

11-19-2012, 11:57 PM

drtom2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by tpeichel

I agree with many of your points, but without cost-shifting, healthcare would be much less expensive. Once the government required hospitals to treat everyone, even those that could not pay, they had no other option but to raise prices for everyone else.

The only way to cut cost significantly is provide less care. No one in healthcare is going to make that decision.

Also people need to look at GDP expense with healthcare and social services. Countries like Norway spend more of their GDP on the combined services then the U.S. Social services decrease hospital costs.

Ultimately, when looking at everything, this issue needs to be decided by the American people and then live with their decision.

Obamacare isn't an answer. It is deflecting the question at the heart of the issue. Is healthcare for the elites or everyone?

11-20-2012, 09:48 AM

shrewsbury

have you ever looked at what your insurance company pays? i get a detailed bill each month and yes they pay less than what the doctors/hospital wants, but it is still extremely high, way more than 9% of what is billed to the individual.

flu shots? how about all the bad ones that make people sick, my wife has to get one for work, i never, never get one. we both are sick about the same and the same goes for TB.

taxman doesn't have to sell his view, it is his and he is expressing it here like others express theirs.

the government should have to buy all of us guns and alarm systems in case of a break in, or a bunker in case of a nuclear war, generators and MRE's in case of a natural disaster, raincoats, hats, and gloves so we don't catch a cold, they should force us to take vitamins and eat health food.

and the increase in life expectancy has to do with access of food, safe water, and dental care, as well as health care.
and why should life be prolong? so we can be overpopulated, have a larger food demand, and cheat out nature?

perhaps since the healthiest and longest living people are in okinawa, we should all eat seafood and have no nursing homes, okinawa is not famous for healthcare, but rather people taking care of their own.

11-20-2012, 10:06 AM

drtom2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by shrewsbury

have you ever looked at what your insurance company pays? i get a detailed bill each month and yes they pay less than what the doctors/hospital wants, but it is still extremely high, way more than 9% of what is billed to the individual.

flu shots? how about all the bad ones that make people sick, my wife has to get one for work, i never, never get one. we both are sick about the same and the same goes for TB.

taxman doesn't have to sell his view, it is his and he is expressing it here like others express theirs.

the government should have to buy all of us guns and alarm systems in case of a break in, or a bunker in case of a nuclear war, generators and MRE's in case of a natural disaster, raincoats, hats, and gloves so we don't catch a cold, they should force us to take vitamins and eat health food.

and the increase in life expectancy has to do with access of food, safe water, and dental care, as well as health care.
and why should life be prolong? so we can be overpopulated, have a larger food demand, and cheat out nature?

perhaps since the healthiest and longest living people are in okinawa, we should all eat seafood and have no nursing homes, okinawa is not famous for healthcare, but rather people taking care of their own.

Your provider, doctor or nurse practitioner, only get 9% of the bill. Look up the stats. Providers in other countries get more.

I always like the Japan comparison. They are significantly more homogenous country, so they can focus on health problems for their population. Like the Japanese have a higher rate of stomach cancer, but not heart disease.

Then have Americans take care of their relatives at home then.

As for who's life should be prolong, all conservatives will say we need to make those decisions, but not me or my family. Most of the tea party people are on Medicare. If they will really into less government, they should all forfeit their Medicare and be logically constient with their message.

11-20-2012, 10:52 AM

shrewsbury

drtom, tha tis fair, but I can only speak for myself, my party has mostly gone crazy and the liberals and not too far behind. I would disagree it would be conservatives who want to make that decision, it seems more of a liberal thing.

as far as medicare/medicaide, if they forfeit their right can we get our money back? the amount I pay for both is way more than I pay for healthcare for my family, but i will admit I have great insurance and my employer pays 100% of it (except my $15 co-pay)

the question is where does government influence stop and personal responsibility begin? the line gets hazier by the minute.

and one thing we should all be concerned about is Ethic laws and healthcare, though our taxes are paying for care the practitioner still has the right to use religion as a source of what they will and will not do.

11-20-2012, 11:06 AM

AUTaxMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by drtom2005

As for who's life should be prolong all conservatives will say we need to make those decisions, but not me or my family. Most of the tea party people are on Medicare. If they will really into less government, they should all forfeit their Medicare and be logically constient with their message.

This is not right. I don't know if "most" tea partiers are on medicare (probably not), but medicare is not welfare. You pay 1.45% of each dollar you make into medicare, so it's not like you are getting something for nothing.